Mark Saunders inquest: an avoidable tragedy

Telegraph View: aspects of the police operation that ended in the death of the
barrister Mark Saunders were unsettling.

9:42AM BST 08 Oct 2010

Whatever the circumstances, the death of Mark Saunders, the barrister shot by police at his home in London, was a tragedy for his family. The loss of a husband, brother and son who was evidently suffering from deep personal problems is grievous. For the police marksmen who killed him, the event was also traumatic: they risk their lives protecting the public, and did not go to work on that day intent on gunning down Mr Saunders. They should not be blamed for what happened, which is why the jury at the inquest reached a sensible decision yesterday in returning a verdict of lawful killing.

That said, however, there were aspects of the police operation that were unsettling and, frankly, baffling. The deployment of 59 armed officers to the house in Chelsea from which Mr Saunders had fired several shots appears to have been a disproportionate response and might have contributed to a siege mentality that made the end result inevitable. The Metropolitan Police's command structure at the scene seems to have been uncertain, even shambolic – reminiscent of the communications breakdown that resulted in the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, mistaken for a suicide bomber, in 2005.

It is also hard to understand why neither Mr Saunders's wife nor his best friend were given the chance to talk to him by mobile phone, and try to persuade him to give himself up. The police maintain that their procedures do not allow for this – but sometimes procedures need to give way to common sense and flexible decision-making. Finally, there was no obvious reason why the firearms officers should have given evidence anonymously, since they are unlikely to face any reprisals for what they did in the line of duty. In short, this was a sad day for all concerned – and one from which lessons should be learnt.